Hindawi Publishing Corporation International Journal of Zoology Volume 2014, Article ID 548401, 10 pages http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2014/548401

Research Article Environmental Determinants Influencing Seasonal Variations of Diversity and Abundance in Wetlands, Northern Region (Ghana)

Collins Ayine Nsor1 and Edward Adzesiwor Obodai2

1 Center for Savannah Ecosystem Research (CESER), P.O. Box TL 861, Tamale, Ghana 2 Department of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, University of Cape Coast, University Post Office, Cape Coast, Ghana

Correspondence should be addressed to Collins Ayine Nsor; [email protected]

Received 28 May 2014; Revised 10 August 2014; Accepted 14 September 2014; Published 29 October 2014

Academic Editor: Greg Demas

Copyright © 2014 C. A. Nsor and E. A. Obodai. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

The study assessed major environmental determinants influencing bird community in six wetlands over a 2-year period.A combination of visual and bird sounding techniques was used to determine the seasonal variations in bird abundance, while ordination techniques were performed to determine the influence of environmental factors on bird assemblage. A total of 1,169 from 25 species and 885 individuals from 23 species were identified in the wet and dry season, respectively. The shallow close marshes supported the greatest number of birds (𝑃 < 0.05) compared to the riparian wetlands. Bird diversity was significantly higher in the wet season than in the dry season (𝐹 = 4.101, 𝑃 <). 0.05 Cattle egret (Bubulcus ibis)andmarshwarbler(Acrocephalus palustris) were the most abundant. Using the IUCN “Red List” database guide, we noted that 96.2% of birds identified were least concern (LC). The yellow weaver bird (Ploceous megarhrynchus) was the only vulnerable species (VU) and represented 3.8%. From the three variables tested, bushfire and farming practices were the major threats and cumulatively explained 15.93% (wet season) and 14.06% (dry season) variations in bird diversity and abundance. These findings will help wetland managers design conservation measures to check current threats on birds from becoming vulnerable in the future.

1. Introduction documented evidence that rate of extinction is getting worse among species confined to small islands to continental scale Birds play a vital role in enriching the biodiversity of wet- [2]. This loss is largely due to their increasingly intolerance lands. This explains why wetlands are foremost recognized to the slightest ecosystem disturbance [3]whichislinked as a haven for waterfowl by Ramsar International in 1971 [1]. to pollution [4], habitat type and bird distribution [5, 6], Their sensitivity to habitat perturbation makes them suitable wetland patch size [7], cutting of mangrove vegetation [8], as bioindicators to wetland health, through their population farming practice and urban development within the wetland size and composition. Globally, over 150 bird species are catchment [9–11], and habitat fragmentation [12]. These reportedlylostsincetheyear1500AD[2]. Recent reports human disturbances at the landscape scale have structured have shown that birds have gone extinct at an exceptionally the population and assemblages of birds because of their high rate, estimated to be 1,000 to 10,000 times the natural highly specific habitat requirements [13, 14]. background rate [2]. Today, one in eight bird species is Scientific studies on bird ecology, diversity, abundance, threatened with global extinction, with 190 species critically and spatial distribution are simply absent or poorly investi- endangered and particularly alarming are sharp declines in a gated in the Northern Savannah wetlands of Ghana. How- number of formerly common and widespread species, such ever, unlike the Northern Region, research on birds in as cranes and some waders. The International Union for the Southern forest belt [15–17] and coastal wetlands has the Conservation of Nature (IUCN) “Red List” have shown been considerably extensive [18–22]. The only notable work 2 International Journal of Zoology previously conducted in one of the wetlands under the Annual rainfall is in the range of 1000–1,300 mm/p.a and current study (Kukobila wetland) was to establish a baseline thewetseasonlastsfromJunetoearlyOctober,whilethe dry season last from November to May. Average temperature of the types of birds found in the wetland [23]. Understanding ∘ ∘ overall bird responses to disturbances will as well require the varies between 14 Cand40C[27]. Altitude ranges between assessment of the various disturbance scenarios on a seasonal 108 and 138 meters above mean sea level. The vegetation cover basis, since the impacts of environmental determinants are is a mixture of grassland dominated by Leersia hexandra many and vary along seasonal trends. Ecological changes and and woodland dominated by Mahogany (Khaya senegalensis) land use activities within wetlands catchment in Northern andsheatree(Vitellaria paradoxa) interspersed with shrubby Region of Ghana are seasonally driven and can potentially communities of Mitragyna inermis and Ziziphus abyssinica. affect bird assemblage, composition, and habitat preference. The trees are relatively short with thick bark and occlusions, Of the 728 bird species recorded in Ghana [18–20]sixof signifying their adaptation to the cyclical dry season bush them are considered threatened and 12 near threatened [24]. fires. Crop farming, livestock rearing, and fishing are the For example the National Biodiversity Strategy for Ghana main stay of activities among the inhabitants. Report mentioned hornbill, parrots, and birds of prey, as the few keystone species under threat [25]. Though these 2.1. Sampling Procedure for Bird Species. Population moni- findings were largely from the southern sector of Ghana toring survey was used to determine the seasonal variations (i.e., forest belt and coastal zones), the phenomenon suggests in bird population, using transects line approach [28]. Ten that some birds in the Northern Savannah zone might be plotsineachofthesixwetlandsof60m× 10 m dimension under threat or at risk of extinction, giving recent undoc- werelaid.Thedistancebetweenonesamplingplotandthe umented, but observed, environmental disturbances on the otherwas5m.Birdswerecountedeachofthetenplots wetlands. Therefore, the absence of a scientific investigation with increasing five class distance scale (1–10, 10–20, 20– makesitimpossibletodeterminethecurrentstateofbird 40, 40–50, and 50–60 m) from the base of the transect line, population, composition, and habitat preference (using their using visual approach, and vocally through bird sounding proximate cues), on a seasonal basis among wetlands in technique developed by [27, 29]. Bird sounding technique is the Northern Savannah zone. In this study, we apply mul- software of recorded sounds of different birds, accompanying tivariate ordination techniques to determine the influence their names and photos. This vocal technique was only used of three environmental factors on the seasonal variation of to count birds that were hidden in dense vegetation and were bird population, diversity, and habitat preference among the difficult to visualize. This was made possible after observing wetlands. The outcome of this investigation will help equip and listening to the same bird screech, chirps, or tweet in wetland managers with first-hand information on the types theopenvegetationinprevioussampling.Repeatedand of seasonal disturbance scenarios and how these disturbances careful listening of the bird sound in the thick vegetation could potentially modify bird assemblage in the future and for 5 minutes was followed by playing the composed sound the selection of appropriate conservation approach towards in order to identify the right bird. Also, birds that were enhancing the sustainability of their population. hidden in the thicket vegetation were counted through a deliberate agitation of the vegetation. This was done, by carefullythrowingastoneinsidethedensevegetation,in 2. Methods order to force the hidden bird(s) to fly out. They were counted after settling on the open vegetation. Counting of birds was Thestudywascarriedoutinsixwetlandslocatedinthe done from 0700–01100 GMT when most of the birds were Northern Region of Ghana, with their coordinates as follows: ∘ 󸀠 ∘ ∘ 󸀠 feeding.Countingwasdoneonceaweekandhencefour (i) Wuntori (N09 08.335 W00 109.685 ); (ii) Kukobila ∘ 󸀠 ∘ 󸀠 ∘ 󸀠 ∘ timesinmonth.Birdswerecountedinthedry(harmattan— (N10 08.723 W000 48.179 ); (iii) Tugu (N09 22.550 W000 󸀠 ∘ 󸀠 ∘ 󸀠 a period characterized by low humidity, high temperatures, 35.004 ); (iv) Bunglung (N09 35.576 W000 47.443 ); (v) ∘ 󸀠 ∘ 󸀠 ∘ foggy condition, and sandy storms) and wet seasons (rainy Adayili (N09 41.391 W000 41.480 ); and (vi) Nabogo (N09 󸀠 ∘ 󸀠 period). The total number of birds recorded was compiled 49.941 W000 .51.942 )(Figure 1).Thesixsiteslieonthe on a monthly basis. Bird nest was not counted, since it extensive floodplain along the course of the White Volta was impossible to establish the type and number of birds River, which has over time become incised and modified cohabitating a nest. A pair of Bushnell Falcon binoculars with through meandering and aligning along various topographic a10× 50 mm dimension was used to observe birds located features.Thishasledtothedevelopmentofstreamsthathave beyond 20 m distance for morphological features like colour diverted from the main White Volta [26]. All six wetlands and structure of the beak, colour of tail feather, colour of were classified as close shallow marshes (Wuntori and Tugu feathers around the neck, colour of the head feathers and the wetlands), open deep marsh (Kukobila wetland), riparian presence of comb-like feathers (see [30]). wetlands (Adayili and Nabogo wetlands), and artificial wet- land (Bunglung wetland). The hydrological regimes of the six wetlands under study were typical of permanent wetlands, 2.2. Environmental Assessment. Identifying how many and whose depth at low tide did not exceed 2 m on average. Sizes which types of human-induced disturbances or threats are of the wetlands were as follows: (a) Wuntori = 7.7 ha; (b) present and their regime is important when assessing the Kukobila = 5 ha, Tugu (c) 2.7 ha; (d) Nabogo = 7.9 ha; (e) status of wetlands of high conservation concern for efficient Adayili = 6.7 ha; and (f) Bunglung = 11.5 ha. management [31–34]. In this regard, four environmental International Journal of Zoology 3

(km) 0 5 10 20

Study sites River Towns Road Sample location B = Bunglung K = Kukobila T = Tugu N = Nabogo W = Wuntori A = Adayili

Figure 1: Map of the study areas, showing the location of the wetlands in the floodplains of the White Volta River catchment, Northern Region.

drivers of change, namely, bushfire, farming activities graz- follows: 4: the threat is found throughout (50%) the site area; ing, and erosion, were assessed to determine the severity of 3: the threat is spread in 15–50% of the study area; 2: the threat these threats on birds. The hierarchical classification of these isscattered(5–15%);and1:thethreatismuchlocalized(<5%). threats was comprehensive (contains all possible items, at Assessment of the area disturbed was carried out within least at higher levels of the hierarchy), consistent (ensures 1.2 km radius starting from the hydric delineated zone of the that entries at a given level of the classification are of the wetland. This is because all land use activities assessed were same type), expandable (enables new items to be added to the observed within the stated radius following a preliminary classification if they are discovered), and exclusive (allows any survey of the wetlands. given item to only be placed in one cell within the hierarchy) (see [35]). A score ranging from 1 to 4 (1 being the lesser 2.3. Statistical Analysis. A canonical correspondence analysis impact and 4 the highest impact) was used to assess scope (CCA) was performed to determine the influence of envi- andseverityofeverythreat.Moreprecisely,for“scope”we ronmental drivers of change on variations on bird diversity, referredtothepercentageratioofthestudyareaaffectedbya abundance, and spatial distribution [37], using two analytical specific threat within the last 5 years (where 100% correspond packages—environmental community analysis version 1.4 to total site area: 𝜒 ha) [36]. The scores were assigned as (ECOM.exe) [38]. Shannon-Weiner index was performed to 4 International Journal of Zoology

500 1 450 0.9 Kruskal-Wallis test, P < 0.05 400 350 0.8 300 0.7 250 200 0.6 150 0.5 per class wetland 100

Number of individuals individuals of Number 0.4 50 0 0.3 Pielo evenness index Pielo Swamp forest Close shallow Deep open Man-made 0.2 marsh marsh 0.1 Wetland classes Wet season 0 Dry season Tugu Adayili Nabogo

Figure 2: Comparison of bird population and distribution pattern Wuntori Kukobila among the different wetland classes in both wet and dry seasons. Bunglung Wet season Dry season 2 Kruskal-Wallis test, P < 0.05 1.8 Figure 4: Bird evenness distribution of birds in the wet and dry 1.6 seasons. 1.4 1.2 2.5 P = 0.05 1 Kruskal-Wallis test, 0.8 2 0.6 0.4 Shannon-Weiner index Shannon-Weiner 1.5 0.2 0 1

Tugu 0.5 Adayili Margalef richness index Margalef Nabogo Wuntori Kukobila Bunglung Wet season 0 Dry season Tugu Adayili Nabogo Wuntori

Figure 3: Variations in mean diversity in the wet and dry season. Kukobila Bunglung Wet season Dry season determine the current status of bird community composition. Shannon-Weiner index equation was expressed as Figure 5: Comparison of bird richness in the six wetlands in wet and dry seasons. 𝑠 󸀠 𝐻 =−∑ 𝑝𝑖 (ln 𝑝𝑖) , (1) 𝑖=1 SPSS version 16.0. Kruskal-Wallis test was applied to test the where 𝑠 isthenumberofspeciesand𝑝𝑖 is the proportion differences in the mean of the diversity indexFigure ( 5). of individuals or the abundance of the 𝑖th species expressed as a proportion of the total cover and ln is a natural 3. Results logarithm [39]. Species evenness distribution (see Figure 4) was evaluated using Pielou evenness index (𝐽) expressed as A total of 1169 individual birds from 25 species were identified and counted during the wet season, while 885 individuals 󸀠 𝐻 from23specieswereobservedinthedryseason(Figure 2, 𝐽= , (2) ln 𝑆 Table 1). Of the 25 species counted, 24 species (96.2%) were classified as least concern (LC), using the IUCN “Red List” 󸀠 where 𝐻 is the diversity index, 𝑆 is species number, and ln is database guide (Table 1). The yellow weaver bird (Ploceus natural logarithm [40]. Species richness was quantified using megarhrynchus) was the only species classified as vulnerable Margalef’s index (𝐷) for species richness expressed as (VU) and represented 3.8%. This species was restricted to 𝐷 = (𝑆 − 1)/ ln 𝑁 [41]. A one-way ANOVA was applied thorny tree (Ziziphus abyssinica) and some tufted and rough to test whether bird diversity, evenness, and species richness edge grasses such as Diplachne fusca along the banks of differed significantly from one wetland to the other, using Nabogo forested and the Bunglung man-made wetlands. All International Journal of Zoology 5 bird species were classified into 21 bird groups, of which Bushfirewasthekeyhuman-ledfactorthatconsistently waders, finches and pigeon, and doves had two species each influenced bird population and diversity in the two riparian classified under them (Table 1). Cattle egret (Bubulcus ibis) wetlands in the dry and wet seasons and a few plots in the was the single most abundant species in the wet season Tugu shallow marsh. Observed patchy conditions brought while marsh warbler (Acrocephalus palustris)wasthesingle about by previously and recent burnt areas (for the pur- most abundant species in the dry season (Table 1). Overall, poses of farm clearing and charcoal production) were more the shallow close marshes of Wuntori and Tugu were the extensive in Adayili and Nabogo forested wetlands than tin most preferred habitats for birds, followed by the riparian Tugu wetland. This disturbance scenario rather attracted wetlands (Adayili and Nabogo) (Figure 2). Birds population diverse birds such as little bee-eater (Merops pusillus), Spotted in the three marshes (Tugu, Wuntori, and Kukobila wetlands) creeper (Salpornis spilonotus), northern red-billed hornbill and the two riparian wetlands substantially differed in both (Tockus erythrorhynchus), and Western gray plantain eater seasons (𝑃 < 0.05), whereas species in artificial wetland (Crinifer piscator) to these wetlands, in spite of the narrow (Bunglung) did not vary significantly𝑃 ( > 0.05). ranges that were created (Figure 6). Majority of species, not captured in the ordination diagrams, were detected in Mean number of birds in each line transect per plot habitats with average conditions of the environmental factors ranged from 2.0 ± 0.5 to 11.6 ± 2.8 in the wet season and 2.2 ± 0.5 9.6 ± 4.4 evaluated. Cumulative percentage variance of the species- to in the dry season (Tables 2(a) and environment relationship (axis I = 5.54 and axis II = 10.39) 2(b)). Nabogo wetland registered the highest mean number explained 15.93% of the variation in the weighted averages of birds per plot while Bunglung artificial wetland was the of the 25 species in relation to three environmental variables least recorded in the wet season. Overall, mean bird diversity 󸀠 in the wet season (Table 3(a)). The rather weak correlation in the wet season (𝐻 = 1.361 ± 0.14 and 1.75 ± 0.13) 󸀠 between species-environmental factors in the first three axes was significantly higher than that of the dry season (𝐻 = (𝑟 = 0.430, 𝑟 = 0.523,and𝑟 = 0.320)reflectedinthehigh 1.24 ± 0.14 and 1.56 ± 0.07)(𝐹 = 4.101; 𝑃 < 0.05)(Figure 3). diversityregisteredinthewetseason(Table 3(a)). Bird diversity generally followed their evenness distribution The dry season saw water from the three marshes (Kuko- among the wetlands (𝑈=0; 𝑃 < 0.01, Mann-Whitney bila, Wuntori, and Tugu) and Bunglung were drained to 𝑈 test) but did not vary significantly from richness (𝑈= irrigate nearby farms. Consequently, birds such as African 9.5; 𝑃 > 0.05, Mann-Whitney 𝑈 test). Comparatively, the jacana (Actophilornis africanus), lanner falcon (Falco biarmi- marshes (Wuntori and Kukobila) were more diverse in the 󸀠 󸀠 cus), marsh warbler (Acrocephalus palustris), and black-billed wet (𝐻 = 1.75 ± 0.13)anddry(𝐻 = 1.56 ± 0.07)seasons, 󸀠 wood dove (Turtur abyssinicus) were confined to the central respectively,thanintheriparianwetlands(Nabogo-𝐻 = 󸀠 part of the wetlands that had isolated pools of water and 1.67 ± 0.08 wet; 𝐻 = 1.52 ± 0.04 dry) (Figure 3). On species vegetation (Figure 7). Although birds were spatially diverse richness, however, the riparian wetlands (e.g., Nabogo) were in these wetlands, they were less abundant. However, the more species rich (𝐷 = 1.96 ± 0.25) than the marshes (e.g., population of yellow billed kite increased in the first 0–10 m Wuntori-𝐷 = 1.87 ± )(0.29 Figure 5). The artificial wetland 󸀠 and 10–20 m transect lines, where incidences of bushfire were (Bunglung) was the least in diversity (𝐻 = 1.57 ± 0.09 󸀠 observed. All the three wetlands with inherent human-led wet, 𝐻 = 1.36 ± 0.14 dry) and species rich (1.36 ± 0.18) disturbances (grazing intensity and farming activities) were (Figures 3 and 5). spatiallyautocorrelatedinthedryseason(Figure 7). Cumulative percentage variance was explained by the first Relationship between Environmental Factors and Bird Assem- two axes (axis I = 8.963 and axis II = 5.092) and accounted blage. Canonical correspondence analysis (CCA) diagram for 14.06% of the variation in the weighted averages of the showed that bird diversity and abundance were generally 23 species diversity and abundance (Table 3(b)). The low bird influenced by farming practices, bushfires, and grazing diversity recorded in the dry season was further reflected in intensity although the level of impact varied between the the strong correlation with the environmental factors on the wet and dry seasons (Figures 6 and 7). Although farming first three axes of the of the ordination diagram𝑟 ( = 0.581, practices were a common activity within the catchment of 𝑟 = 0.644,and𝑟 = 0.629)(Figure 7). the wetlands in the wet season, the situation was more severe andwidespreadwithin100mradiusintheartificialwetland, with almost 90% of the fertile lands cultivated. Birds that 4. Discussion were identified in these farmed plots were less diverse, low in abundance, and sensitive to disturbances. Examples included Our study highlighted the growing concern on bird abun- dance and diversity fluctuations on seasonal scales, as a were black-billed dove (Turtur abyssinicus), marsh warbler result of environmental disturbances. The increase in bird (Acrocephalus palustris), and the yellow weaver bird (Ploceus density in the wet season, with a corresponding increase in megarhrynchus) compared with birds found in the remaining areaoflateraldistance,wasprobablyduetotheabundance five wetlands. Heavily grazed plots in Wuntori and Tugu shal- of food types, presence of dense vegetation (serving as low marshes, with severe trampling, supported high secured nesting sites against hunting), the near absence abundanceofbirdsliketheAfricanpygmygoose(Nettapus of inflammable litter, stable hydrological period, and the auritus), collared sunbird (Anthreptes collaris), African jacana importance of plot size ratio to wetland area. Wetland- (Actophilornis africanus), Pied kingfisherCeryle ( rudis), and dependent birds have reportedly used the availability of water the squacco heron (Ardeola ralloides)(Figure 6). as proximate cues to assist in their broad scale selection 6 International Journal of Zoology

Table 1: List of bird species detected and their status, with respect to the IUCN global “Red List”database.

Family Scientific name Bird group Common name IUNC status Jacanidae Actophilornis africana Coots African jacana LC Anatidae Nettapus auritus Bitterns and herons African pygmy goose LC Lybiidae Lybius dubius Woodpeckers Bearded barbet LC Turtur abyssinicus Pigeons and doves Black-billed dove LC Malaconotidae Tchagra australis Shricks Black-crowned tchagra LC Charadriidae Vanellus tectus Plovers and lampings Black headed plover LC Ardeidae Bubulcus ibis Bitterns and heron Cattle egret LC Nectariniidae Anthreptes collaris Tree creepers Collared sunbird LC Phasianidae Pternistis bicalcaratus Pheasants and patridges Double spurred francolin LC Muscicapidae Muscicapa gambagae Flycatchers Gambaga flycatcher LC Falconidae Falco biarmicus Falcons Lannerfalcon LC Meropidae Merops pusillus Bee eaters Little bee-eater LC Acrocephalidae Acrocephalus palustris Warblers Marsh warbler LC Ploceidae Euplectes franciscanus Finches Northern red bishop LC Bucerotidae Tockus erythrorhynchus Hornbills Northern red hornbill LC Alcedinidae Ceryle rudis Kingfishers Pied kingfisher LC Ploceidae Quelea quelea Weavers Red-billed quelea LC Certhiidae Salpornis spilonotus Tree creepers Spotted creeper LC Ardeidae Ardeola ralloides Waders Squacco heron LC Columbidae vinacea Pigeons and doves Vinaceous dove LC Sturnidae Cinnyricinclus leucogaster Terns Violet backed starling LC Musophagidae Crinifer piscator Touracos Western gray plantain eater LC Ciconiidae Ciconia episcopus Waders Wooly necked stock LC Accipitridae Milvus aegyptius Swallows Yellow-billed kite LC Ploceidae Ploceus megarhrynchus Finches Yellow weaver bird VU The status abbreviations are as follows: least concern (LC); vulnerable (VU); threatened (T); near threatened (NT); critical (CR); extinct (EX).

Table 2: (a) Mean number of birds counted in a lateral distance per line transect (Wet season). (b) Mean number of birds counted in a lateral distance per line transect (Dry season).

(a) Wetland type 0–10 m 10–20 m 20–30 m 30–40 m 40–50 50–60 m Kukobila 6.6 ± 2.5 2 ± 0.5 4.8 ± 2.2 6.2 ± 1.5 6 ± 1.1 7.4 ± 2 Wuntori 11 ± 39.6± 4.1 8.4 ± 1.7 7.2 ± 1.4 3.8 ± 0.6 6.2 ± 1.8 Tugu 9.8 ± 4.8 7 ± 2.8 5.5 ± 1.9 9.6 ± 3.6 5.6 ± 2 4.4 ± 1.2 Adayili 7.6 ± 3.4 5.4 ± 1.4 2.8 ± 0.4 5.8 ± 2.2 4.4 ± 1.4 5.2 ± 1.8 Nabogo 9.8 ± 1.7 7.2 ± 2.6 9.6 ± 4.1 7.8 ± 3.4 6.4 ± 2.3 11.6 ± 2.8 Bunglung 9 ± 1.9 4.6 ± 1.2 7.8 ± 3.9 5.6 ± 3.9 4.8 ± 1.6 3.2 ± 0.4 (b) Wetland type 0–10 m 10–20 m 20–30 m 30–40 m 40–50 50–60 m Kukobila 4.2 ± 1.8 2.2 ± 0.5 5.4 ± 1.4 7.6 ± 2.4 6.6 ± 2.2 4.2 ± 2 Wuntori 5.4 ± 2.2 5.6 ± 3.4 3.2 ± 0.9 3.4 ± 1.3 5 ± 2.3 3.8 ± 1.6 Tugu 3.6 ± 0.8 4.6 ± 1.3 7.8 ± 47.4± 2.1 9.6 ± 4.4 3.6 ± 2.1 Adayili 4.8 ± 1.9 5.2 ± 1.2 2.4 ± 13.6± 1.9 5.6 ± 2.5 3.8 ± 2.1 Nabogo 8.8 ± 1.6 2 ± 0.8 6.6 ± 1.4 4.2 ± 0.7 4 ± 1.2 3 ± 0.9 Bunglung 6.2 ± 2.7 7 ± 2.4 7.4 ± 4.5 5.8 ± 1.9 6.2 ± 2.2 3.6 ± 0.7 International Journal of Zoology 7

Table 3: (a) Summary of CCA axis lengths for birds, showing the levels of correlation between axes and environmental gradients, percentage variance of species, and species-environment relationships (wet season). (b) Summary of CCA axis lengths for birds, showing the levels of correlation between axes and environmental gradients, percentage variance of species, and species-environment relationships (dry season).

(a) Axis 1 Axis 2 Axis 3 Canonical eigenvalues for bird species 0.163 0.143 0.078 Pearson correlation species-environmental scores 0.722 0.795 0.558 Kendall rank correlation sp-env’tal scores 0.430 0.523 0.320 Cumulative percentage variance 5.54 10.39 13.05 % variance explained 5.54 4.85 2.66 Number of sites = 30 Number of species (response variables) = 25 Number of environmental variables = 3 (b) Axis 1 Axis 2 Axis 3 Canonical eigenvalues for bird species 0.29 0.16 0.10 Pearson correlation sp-environmental scores 0.86 0.65 0.61 Kendall rank correlation for sp-env’tal scores 0.58 0.64 0.63 Cumulative percentage variance 8.97 14.1 17.2 % variance explained 8.96 5.09 3.14 Number of sites = 30 Number of species (response variables) = 25 Number of environmental variables = 3

Ordination plot Environment axis 1

3 0.25

0.2 2 0.15

0.1 1 0.05

0 0 −0.05 −1

−0.1 axis 2 Environment Species/samples axis 2 Species/samples −0.15 −2 −0.2

−3 −0.25

−3 −2 −1 0 1 2 3 Species/samples axis 1

Figure 6: Canonical correspondence analysis (CCA) ordination diagram, showing the relationship between environmental variables and bird species across the six wetlands, in the wet season. The red circles represent sample plots, the green squares represent bird species, and the arrows represent each of the environmental variables plotted pointing in the direction of maximum change of explanatory variables across the six wetlands. 8 International Journal of Zoology

Ordination plot Environment axis 1

0.35 2 0.3 0.25 0.2 1 0.15 0.1 0.05 0 0 −0.05 −0.1 Environment axis 2 Environment

Species/samples axis 2 Species/samples −1 −0.15 −0.2 −0.25 −2 −0.3 −0.35

−2 −1 0 1 2 Species/samples axis 1

Figure 7: Canonical correspondence analysis (CCA) ordination diagram showing the relationship between environmental factors and bird assemblage in the six wetlands in the dry season. Diagram description is the same as in Figure 6.

of habitat preference [42, 43], while wetland size has been currenttrendsofdisturbancescouldinthenearfuturesee observed to correlate with higher densities of bird species many birds under least concern status becoming vulnerable in North Dakota semipermanent wetlands [5]. For the dry if not completely extinct. This is evidenced from the relatively season, we observed that marsh-dependent birds (African low number of species (26 species) encountered in this study, jacana,marshwarbler,andsquaccoheron),whosepopulation compared to 48 species of water birds detected in four are largely dependent on stable hydrological regime [44, 45], coastal wetlands of Ghana [22]. The low diversity indices 𝐻󸀠 = 1.24 1.75 were confined to isolated pools of water, as a result of water in this study ( – )comparedtotheindices abstraction for irrigation activities. However, the abundance provided by [39] (ranging from 1.5 to 3.5 and occasionally 𝐻󸀠 =3.99 of riparian preferred species (Spooted creeper, little bee- surpasses 4.5) and those reported by [49]( )in eater, and northern red-billed hornbill) may be due to the the Taunsa Barrage Wildlife Sanctuary-Pakistan reflect the attraction (using their proximate cues) to leftover carcasses, threats to predicted future vulnerabilities of birds in the following burning and long-term adaption to bushfire land- study sites. The reported decline in the global diversity of scape conditions. Field experiment conducted by [46]found habitat-specific birds and shorebird populations, since 1980– five out of 35 birds in unburned sites in a Florida wetland, 2007 [50], has been predicted to continue at a rate not less while [47]alsodetectedanincreaseintheabundanceof than 80% [51]. The current study identified farming activities, upland sandpipers (Bartramia longicauda)followingburning grazing pressure, and bushfires as the factors that affected bird and grazing activities. But other studies have rather shown diversity. Other findings identified pollution4 [ ], cutting of a decline in the population of some birds like honeyeaters, mangrove vegetation [8], and hydrological regime [44, 45]. through postmortality of bushfires, predation, and food scarcity in Australian wetlands [48]. These varied responses 5. Conclusion to bushfires are more of species-specific at different spatio- temporal to long-term scales. Generally, bird diversity and abundance were largely influ- With reference to the IUCN “Red List” database (2011) enced farming activities and bushfire, and the impacts varied wenotedthatbirdstatusfollowingtheinfluenceofenviron- according to the season and the type of wetland. Although mental disturbances appears not to be under severe threat, farming activities and bushfire encouraged the presence of since 96.2% were categorized as least concern (LC) and 3.8% some bird species, the overall impacts of these environmental (yellow weaver bird (Ploceus megarhrynchus)) as vulnerable determinants negated the role of the disturbance scenario (VU). These species were among the least counted and lived and hence may not be entirely recommended as conservation on narrow range habitat, predominated by vegetation type measure to increase bird population and diversity. Further- (Diplachne fusca, aroughserratedgrassspecies,andZiziphus more, considering the fact that the yellow weaver bird was abyssinica, a thorny tree) that protect them against hunting identified as a vulnerable species (VU) gives an indication for their aesthetic value. But there is the likelihood that that the current environmental disturbances observed during International Journal of Zoology 9

the study could in the near future affect the population of the [14] J. D. Brawn, S. K. Robinson, and F.R. Thompson III, “The role of remaining 96.2% of birds classified presently as least concern disturbance in the ecology and conservation of birds,” Journal of (LC). Annual Review of Ecological Systems,vol.32,pp.251–276,2001. [15] E. H. Owusu, “The ornithological importance of the Amansuri Conflict of Interests Community Nature Reserve in the Western Region of Ghana,” JournalofScienceandTechnology,vol.27,no.3,pp.72–85,2007. The authors declare that there is no conflict of interests [16] E. H. Owusu, “The perceptions of local communities towards regarding the publication of this paper. the conservation of birds in an important bird area in Ghana,” West African Journal of Applied Ecology,vol.13,no.1,pp.111–116, Acknowledgment 2008. [17] R. Demey and A. Hester, “First records of Nimba Flycatcher The authors express their sincere gratitude to the Ghana Edu- Melaenornis annamarulae for Ghana,” Bulletin of the African cation Trust Fund (GETfund), for supporting this research Bird Club,vol.15,no.1,pp.95–96,2008. work. [18] Y. Ntiamoa-Baidu, S. K. Nyame, and A. A. Nuoh, “Trends in theuseofasmallcoastallagoonbywaterbirds:MuniLagoon References (Ghana),” Biodiversity & Conservation,vol.9,no.4,pp.527–539, 2000. [1] T. J. Davis, Ed., The Ramsar Convention Manual: A Guide [19] Y. Ntiamoa-Baidu, E. H. Owusu, S. Asamoah, and K. Owusu- totheConventiononWetlandsofInternationalImportance Boateng, “Distribution and abundance of forest birds in Ghana,” Especially as Waterfowl Habitat, Ramsar Convention Bureau, Ostrich, vol. 71, no. 1-2, pp. 262–267, 2000. Gland, Switzerland, 6th edition, 1994. [20] Y.Ntiamoa-Baidu, S. A. Asamoah, E. H. Owusu, and K. Owusu- [2] Birdlife International, Threatened Birds of the World,Lynx Boateng, “Avifauna of two upland evergreen forest reserves, the Editions/Birdlife International, Barcelona, Spain, 2011. Atewa range and Tano Offin, in Ghana,” Ostrich,vol.71,no.1-2, [3] C. W. Schwartz and E. R. Schwartz, “An ecological reconnais- pp. 277–280, 2000. sance of the pheasants of Hawaii,” The Auk,vol.68,no.3,pp. [21] R. H. Suapim, D. K. Attuquayefio, F. Gbogbo, and E. H. Owusu, 281–314, 1951. “Aspects of the feeding ecology of wintering water birds in the [4] C. Gordon, K. Yankson, C. V. Biney, J. W. Tumbolto, D. S. Densu Delta Ramsar Site, Ghana,” Ghana Journal of Science,vol. Amlalo, and D. Kpelle, Report of the Working Group on Wet- 47, pp. 17–34, 2007. land Typology. Report to Ghana Coastal Wetlands Management [22] F. Gbogbo and D. K. Attuquayefio, “Issues arising from changes Project, Ghana Wildlife Department, Accra, Ghana, 1998. in water bird population estimates in coastal Ghana,” Journal of [5]H.A.KantrudandR.E.Stewart,“Ecologicaldistributionand Bird Populations,vol.10,pp.79–87,2000. crude density of breeding birds on prairie wetlands,” Journal of [23] E. A. Obodai and C. A. Nsor, “Aspects of biodiversity and fish Wildlife Management,vol.48,no.2,pp.426–437,1984. production in the Kukobila wetland in the Savelugu-Nanton [6]D.J.TwedtandC.R.Loesch,“Forestareaanddistributionin District of the Northern Region of Ghana,” Ethiopian Journal of the Mississippi alluvial valley: implications for breeding bird Environmental Studies and Management,vol.2,no.3,pp.27–35, conservation,” Journal of Biogeography,vol.26,no.6,pp.1215– 2009. 1224, 1999. [24] Birdlife International, Threatened Birds of the World,Lynx [7] R. Sallabanks, J. R. Walters, and J. A. Collazo, “Breeding bird Editions/Birdlife International, Barcelona, Spain, 2000. abundance in bottomland hardwood forests: habitat, edge, and [25] Ministry of Environment and Science, National Biodiversity patch size effects,” The Condor,vol.102,no.4,pp.748–758,2000. Strategy for Ghana Report, Ministry of Environment and Sci- [8]D.K.AttuqueyefioandF.Gbogbo,“Prospectsofconserving ence, Ghana, 2002. wetlands along the Mukwe Lagoon at Nungua in the Greater [26] T. Slaymaker and R. M. Blench, Rethinking Natural Resource Accra Region of Ghana,” West African Journal of Applied Degradation in Sub-Saharan Africa: Policies to Support Sustain- Ecology,vol.2,pp.65–75,2001. able Soil Fertility Management, Soil and Water Conservation [9] W. J. Mitsch and J. G. Gooselink, Wetlands,JohnWiley&Sons, among Resource Poor Farmers in Semi-Arid Areas: Country New York, NY, USA, 3rd edition, 2000. Studies. I, University of Development Studies, Tamale, Ghana, [10] J.Biggs,P.Williams,M.Whitfield,P.Nicolet,andA.Weatherby, 2002. “15 years of pond assessment in Britain: results and lessons [27] W. J. Sutherland, Ecological Census Techniques, Cambridge learned from the work of pond conservation,” Aquatic Conser- University Press, Cambridge, UK, 2nd edition, 2006. vation: Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems,vol.15,no.6,pp. [28]S.T.Buckland,D.R.Anderson,K.P.Burnham,andJ.L. 693–714, 2005. Laake, Distance Sampling: Estimating Abundance of Biological [11] A. D. Fox, J. Madsen, H. Boyd et al., “Effects of agricultural Populations, Chapman & Hall, New York, NY, USA, 2003. change on abundance, fitness components and distribution of [29] C. J. Bibby, N. D. Burgess, D. A. Hill, and S. H. Mustoe, Bird two arctic-nesting goose populations,” Global Change Biology, Census Techniques, Academic Press, New York, NY, USA, 2nd vol. 11, no. 6, pp. 881–893, 2005. edition, 2000. [12] L. D. Kangah-Kesse, D. K. Attuquayefio, E. H. Owusu, and F. [30] Birds of Ghana Galleries, 2010, http://www.pbase.com/. Gbogbo, “Bird species diversity and abundance in the abiriw [31] R. J. Hobbs and L. F. Huenneke, “Disturbance, diversity, and sacred grove in the Eastern region of Ghana,” West African invasion: implications for conservation,” Conservation Biology, Journal of Applied Ecology,vol.11,pp.41–50,2007. vol. 6, no. 3, pp. 324–337, 1992. [13]G.Niemi,J.Hanowski,P.Helleetal.,“Ecologicalsustainability [32] W. J. Sutherland, The Conservation Handbook,CAP— of birds in boreal forests,” Conservation Ecology,vol.2,no.2, Conservation Action Planning, Blackwell Science, Massachus- article 17, 1998. etts TNC-WWF (The Nature Conservancy World Wide Fund 10 International Journal of Zoology

for Nature), Massachusetts, Mass,USA, 2000, http://conserve- online.org/workspaces/cbdgateway/resources. [33]N.Salafsky,R.Margoluis,K.H.Redford,andJ.G.Robin- son, “Improving the practice of conservation: a conceptual framework and research agenda for conservation science,” Conservation Biology,vol.16,no.6,pp.1469–1479,2002. [34] N. Salafsky, D. Salzer, and J. Ervin, Conventions for defin- ing, naming, measuring, combining, and mapping threats in conservation. An initial proposal for a standard system, 2003, http://www.fosonline.org/resource/conventions-for-threats. [35] N.Salafsky,D.Salzer,A.J.Stattersfieldetal.,“Astandardlexicon for biodiversity conservation: unified classifications of threats and actions,” Conservation Biology,vol.22,no.4,pp.897–911, 2008. [36]C.Battisti,L.Luiselli,andC.Teofili,“Quantifyingthreatsina Mediterranean wetland: are there any changes in their evalua- tion during a training course?” Biodiversity and Conservation, vol. 18, no. 11, pp. 3053–3060, 2009. [37] C. J. F. Ter Braak, “Canonical correspondence analysis: a new eigenvector technique for multivariate direct gradient analysis,” Ecology,vol.67,no.5,pp.1167–1179,1986. [38] P. A. Henderson and R. M. Seaby, Environmental Community Analysis 1.3, Pisces Conservation Ltd, Hampshire, UK, 2000. [39] C. E. Shannon and W. Weaver, The Mathematical Theory of Communication, The University of Illinois Press, Urbana, Ill, USA, 1963. [40] E. C. Pielou, An introduction to Mathematical Ecology,John Wiley&Sons,NewYork,NY,USA,1969. [41] R. Margalef, Perspective in Ecological Theory, University of Chicago Press, Chicago, Ill, USA, 1968. [42] J. A. Kushland, “Responses of wading birds to seasonally fluctuating water levels strategies and their limits,” Journal of Colonial Water,vol.9,pp.155–162,1987. [43] J. E. Austin, “Responses of dabbling ducks to wetland conditions in the Prairie Pothole region,” Journal of Waterbirds,vol.25,no. 4, pp. 465–473, 2002. [44] F. Causarano, C. Battisti, and A. Sorace, “Effect of winter water stress on the breeding bird assemblage of a remnant wetland in Central Italy,” Revue d’Ecologie,vol.64,no.1,pp.61–72,2009. [45] D. Zacchei, C. Battisti, and G. M. Carpaneto, “Contrasting effects of water stress on wetland-obligated birds in a semi- natural Mediterranean wetland,” Lakes and Reservoirs: Research and Management,vol.16,no.4,pp.281–286,2011. [46] R. J. Vogl, “Effects of fire on the plants and of a Florida wetland,” American Midland Naturalist,vol.89,no.2,pp.334– 347, 1973. [47] A. F. L. A. Powell, “Effects of prescribed burns and bison (Bos bison) grazing on breeding bird abundances in tallgrass prairie,” Auk,vol.123,no.1,pp.183–197,2006. [48] M. Allen, “Wetlands and Fire. Water and Rivers Commission. Water Notes for Wetlands Managers. WNS2,” Natural Heritage Trust, Australia, 2000. [49] F. Bibi and Z. Ali, “Measurement of diversity indices of avian communities at Taunsa Barrage Wildlife Sanctuary, Pakistan,” JournalofAnimalandPlantSciences,vol.23,no.2,pp.469–474, 2013. [50] S. H. Butchart, M. Walpole, B. Collen et al., “Global biodiversity: indicators of recent declines,” Science,vol.328,no.5982,pp. 1164–1168, 2010. [51] F.Von Euler, “Selective extinction and rapid loss of evolutionary history in the bird fauna,” Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences,vol.268,no.1463,pp.127–130,2001. International Journal of Peptides

Advances in BioMed Stem Cells International Journal of Research International International Genomics Hindawi Publishing Corporation Hindawi Publishing Corporation Hindawi Publishing Corporation Hindawi Publishing Corporation Hindawi Publishing Corporation http://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014 http://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014 http://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014 Virolog y http://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014 http://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014

Journal of Nucleic Acids

Zoology International Journal of Hindawi Publishing Corporation Hindawi Publishing Corporation http://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014 http://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014

Submit your manuscripts at http://www.hindawi.com

Journal of The Scientific Signal Transduction World Journal Hindawi Publishing Corporation Hindawi Publishing Corporation http://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014 http://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014

Genetics Anatomy International Journal of Biochemistry Advances in Research International Research International Microbiology Research International Bioinformatics Hindawi Publishing Corporation Hindawi Publishing Corporation Hindawi Publishing Corporation Hindawi Publishing Corporation Hindawi Publishing Corporation http://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014 http://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014 http://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014 http://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014 http://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014

Enzyme International Journal of Molecular Biology Journal of Archaea Research Evolutionary Biology International Marine Biology Hindawi Publishing Corporation Hindawi Publishing Corporation Hindawi Publishing Corporation Hindawi Publishing Corporation Hindawi Publishing Corporation http://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014 http://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014 http://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014 http://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014 http://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014